Flash Media Server Priced to Lose?

Question

I would note that I recently read a report where, I believe,
YouTube is going to the Apple platform. This I would have to
consider as a major direction for this streaming video technology.
Is this because the technology is better than Flash? I would have
to say no. Well then why? In my opinion the answer is easy. The
cost for streaming the products. The additional cost for streaming
Quicktime or Windows video is ZERO. The cost to stream Flash is
$4,500.00 per server. Prohibitive! The price to be hosted on one of
Adobe's primary streaming Flash providers? $500.00 per month! The
price to be hosted on a Windows server with Windows streaming?
$13.30 per month. Adobe even offers a hack to the Windows Server
software to stream Flash! In my opinion Flash is the best, most
option rich animation software period. In my opinion streaming is
the new technology for web sites. I would strongly suggest that
Adobe's pricing of their streaming server software is a great big
open door for people like Microsoft and Apple to take control of
the streaming technology in the future. You can bet that Bill Gates
and Steve Jobs have people working on exactly that right now. If
that is true that YouTube/Google are going to Quicktime that on
coming train is closer than they think.
Right now I liken buying and learning Flash CS3 to buying a
car and learning how to drive it only to find out later that to
drive it out of my driveway is cost prohibitive.
See
Forbes
from last year. They thought the same thing then and now YouTube is
going to Quicktime.
Open Source Flash Streaming server software:
red5

Answer 1

douglask1,
> Why would they pay up to $4.500.00 per server to use
Flash
> when they can do it for free using Quicktime or Windows?
If QuickTime and Microsoft do offer free streaming software,
and if
streaming is the true deal-breaker (not ubiquity of plug-in
or, say,
interactivity with traditional Flash animation), then I
imagine Adobe would
indeed take notice and compensate in their pricing structure.
That's the
volatile beauty of a free market.
> Earlier, refering to YouTube going to Quicktime you said
"It's
> already going in a major direction. I would see that as
a major
> 'change' in direction. ;)". Well they are and I would
bet they go
> to streaming -vs- progressive.
If your bet is right, I suspect we'll all see a big change,
agreed.
Time will tell.
> I would further argue that the success of Flash is
because of the
> progressive downloads which are great for short clips.
It's been great for long clips, too. I personally think much
of the
success is also due to the "one stop shop" nature of Flash
video: no need
for more than one plug-in. In addition, Flash offers keyed
alpha that,
while supported in the other video platforms, doesn't seem to
be supported
in their web implementations. (I could easily be wrong in
that assessment;
it's just that I haven't seen any QuickTime or WMV files with
transparent or
semi-transparent areas blended into the page in an apparently
non-rectangular way. I haven't seen QuickTime or WMV files
rotated or
skewed, either.)
> If one is interested in longer animations or videos
progressive
> severly restricts the amount a viewer can use the
controls to scroll
> forward or backward without waiting for a reload of that
section
Yes, that's a weakness of progressive download.
> Progressive also allows for one to stop the video and
grab (steal)
> content.
Agreed, that's arguably another weakness.
> And, yes, server software is not cheep but Apache is
free.
> One could set up a server using Apache and Darwin, both
free,
> and stream Quicktime.
Yes, and many do. Curiously, major motion picture studios
seem to be
leaning more on Flash, in spite this free approach. (That may
change, as
you've suggested, but it's interesting to me that Flash has
taken so much
market share in light of free alternatives. That suggests to
me it's about
more than just streaming.)
> Flash is great! I love it! Don't take me wrong.
No worries, douglask1, and I hope you don't take me wrong,
either. I
just don't see how this sort of speculation is useful on a
tech support
forum.
> For anyone that wants/needs to use streaming Flash, in
my opinion,
> has priced themselves out of the market.
That clearly cannot be, or there wouldn't be such a heavy
Flash video
market. Again, if your suspicions are are correct, that may
change, but in
the mean time, Flash video is enjoying a strong presence on
the Web,
streaming and not.
> I guess you could use Flash and convert the videos to
Quicktime
> but how long do you think before good old Steve Jobs and
his
> team have a new version of Quicktime to compete with
Flash CS3?
I guess I just don't think of Flash and QuickTime as the
analogous
tools. Comparing those is like comparing apples to plum
pudding. Yes,
QuickTime content is programmable -- I've seen some really
neat examples
over the years -- but people barely seem to use it for that.
Practically
speaking, they use it for video. In the same way, PDFs are
somewhat
programmable, but people mainly use PDFs for "plain old"
readable documents.
Who knows why? Meanwhile, Flash content (clearly the heavy
lifter by
comparison, programming-wise) is being use all over the
place. I honestly
can't think of a more versatile platform: illlustrations,
cartoons,
PowerPoint-like presentations, MP3 players, games,
multiplayer games,
television output, Web applications ... and yes, Web video
output. All from
a single plug-in. That sometimes blows my mind (in a good
way).
What you're talking about are interesting topics, and
depending on how
things fall out, might make for some careful decision making
on the part of
numerous designer/developers (and the various companies
discussed). Who
would have thought Flash would have gotten as big as it did?
Things change.
Change is good. :)
David Stiller
Adobe Community Expert
Dev blog,
http://www.quip.net/blog/
"Luck is the residue of good design."